[UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"

Tue Feb 24 00:18:09 UTC 2015

It becomes problematic, as Edmon mentioned, when there are dots in both
sides. It's especially confusing if both sides contain a string that
plausibly could be a TLD:

customer.care@شزذ.يثب

Brent London
brentlondon at google.com
+1 650-214-5206

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Alireza Saleh <saleh+ua at nic.ir> wrote:

> There is no problem as long as the usernames starts and ends with a
> character with a property of AL (Arabic Letter), R (Right to left) or L
> (Left to right) otherwise in a LTR context it may jump around @ sign and
> make the address unreadable. The email address may also become unreadable
> in LTR context If the username part starts with L and ends with AL like :
>
> testمثال@مثال.تست
>
> the red part is username.
>
> -Alireza
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
>
> What about where the username part contains a dot or other separators? Is
> there a difference between “.” And “-“ or “_”?
>
> tld.sld at name.user ?
> tld.sld at name-user / tld.sld at user-name ?
> etc.?
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
> <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alireza Saleh
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:07 PM
> *To:* Edmon Chung
> *Cc:* ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"
>
> This is very interesting question. I’ve also thought about it before. This
> is a new topic and there is no similar experiences. I don’t have exact
> answer to this question but overall I think people mainly prefer the RTL
> version with right alignement. however the bidi property of @ allows its
> usage in the middle of RTL texts without creating any confusions unlike
> <http://>.
>
> نام@مثال.آزمایشی <%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85 at xn--mgbh0fb.xn--hgbk6aj7f53bba>
> TLD.SLD at NAME
>
>
> -Alireza
>
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
>
>
> That applies to email (EAI) addresses as well I suppose?
> Which Brent has been bringing up.
> So, within a RTL context (e.g. if the user interface or other elements are
> RTL) one should expect
>
> tld.domain at name.user:mailto
>
> Is that correct Alireza?
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
> *From:* ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org
> <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alireza Saleh
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:54 AM
> *To:* Mark Svancarek
> *Cc:* ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Regarding "RTL"
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Just a quick note about your question, it is expected the label starts
> from the right side of the address baar, and from right to left. So the
> main issue would be the alignment. Natively it should look like:
>
> com.microsoft.www://http
>
> -Alireza
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Mark Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, I had some questions regarding my recent usage of the term “RTL”.  By
> this I mean “right to left”, a characteristic of Arabic and Hebrew.  At
> Microsoft we also call this “bidi” (bidirectional).
>
> Here’s a discussion regarding RTL.  (I’ve also attached a much more
> detailed explanation, which includes Microsoft’s recommendations, but it’s
> in PowerPoint.  Hopefully you already use a compatible viewer.)
> Bidi display of IRIs (URLs/URIs)
> Bidirectional display of IRIs (an IRI with some Right-To-Left characters,
> eg: Arabic) has some odd quirks.  There’s an IETF WG working on creating an
> IRI RFC.  It’d be nice if we could help ensure that there were reasonable
> standards for the display of bidi IRIs.  The existing IRI drafts suggest
> using the Unicode Bidi Algorithm to display IRIs, but that has some
> problems.
>
> User and government feedback indicates that our current behavior is a bit
> unexpected.  Currently we have some odd quirks about the display of Bidi
> IRIs in Microsoft.  This is just an example, other places may have
> different odd quirks.
>
> *Logical Order*
> *IE with LTR context*
> *IE with RTL context*
> http://www.microsoft.com
> http://www.microsoft.com
> http://www.microsoft.com
> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/>
> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/>
> http://اا1اا.بب2بب.ةة3ةة <http://xn--1-ymcaba.xn--2-0mcaba.xn--3-2mcaba/>
> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/>
> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/>
> http://a1a.اا2اا.بب3بب.d4d <http://a1a.xn--2-ymcaba.xn--3-0mcaba.d4d/>
> http://*اا*1*اا*.b2b.c3c.بب4بب <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/>
> http://اا1اا.b2b.c3c.بب4بب <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/>
> http://اا1اا.b2b.c3c.بب4بب <http://xn--1-ymcaba.b2b.c3c.xn--4-0mcaba/>
>
> As we can see, the order of some of the elements may seem
> counter-intuitive.   The highlighted sections start in one direction, but
> then jump or rearrange direction so that the elements don’t follow the same
> order.
>
> The Unicode Bidi algorithm has the idea that some characters aren’t
> inherently RTL or LTR.  Instead they take on the properties of the
> characters surrounding them.  This is why some pairs get “flipped” in the
> rendered order.
>
> *User Expectations*
> Limited usability investigations have demonstrated that users expect IRIs
> and other paths to be in the form of an ordered list.  The “separators” of
> the various fields vary, but the entire unit is treated as a list.  E.g.:
> http://www.microsoft.com is a list { “http”, “www”, “microsoft”, “com”
> }.  Users expect it to be rendered “in order” with the first element, then
> second, etc.
>
> What is a bit unclear is exactly which direction the users expect the
> lists to be rendered in.  There seem to be 2 main options for what users
> expect:
> ·        Always render the path elements from Left to Right (e.g. “
> www.microsoft.com”) regardless of the script.
>
> ·        Always render the path elements from Right to Left in a Bidi
> context (application), e.g.: “com.microsoft.www//:http”, EVEN FOR ASCII
> IRIs.
> We need to confirm what the user expectations are for Bidi Display, and
> ensure that any edits to IETF IRI standards match those expectations.
>
> <BiDiIRIsUC1.pptx>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/ua-discuss/attachments/20150223/178abc26/attachment.html>